"If we had this equipment, we could theoretically eliminate 60% of the highway accidents," board member Robert Sumwalt said. That is the share of highway accidents involving rear-end collisions, lane-change maneuvers and vehicles running off the road.

I have faith in my fellow Americans that we can re-up our level of distracted driving and reduce that number.

Rapmaster2000:"If we had this equipment, we could theoretically eliminate 60% of the highway accidents," board member Robert Sumwalt said. That is the share of highway accidents involving rear-end collisions, lane-change maneuvers and vehicles running off the road.

I have faith in my fellow Americans that we can re-up our level of distracted driving and reduce that number.

And Im sure it will be the most reliable piece of equipment on the car with nary a recall. Coulda used one at the end of sept, stupid old man running a stop sign.

sithon:that sounds bad . like it suddenly jerks the wheel out of your hands.

Well. If you were going to crash the car. Maybe you need to have the wheel jerked away from you. If only for the sake of whatever or whoever you're about to hit.

Purists resist vehicle automation. I ask why we're not there already? Cell phone use. Tail gating. Road rage. Not using signals. Vehicular manslaughter. DUIs. I don't care if you're an expert driver who can ace the time trials at Laguna Seca. Back in reality, a great many people have proven themselves incapable of piloting a vehicle. You encounter them on the road every day, and some day one of them might kill you because they stubbornly insisted they could pilot a machine better than a computer.

I understand not implicitly trusting a computer to do everything. See: people who receive multiple thousand dollar electric bills, Y2K, that time when 2 Pac's hologram became sentient and the company had to go out of business to cover it up. However. People have already shown how they handle vehicles, and it's poorly. Let's give the computers a spin.

This text is now purple:FirstNationalBastard: Are you going to tie women's hands to the wheel so they don't apply make-up while doing 80 in the center lane on the shoulder farking everywhere while on a cellphone?

bittermang:sithon: that sounds bad . like it suddenly jerks the wheel out of your hands.

Well. If you were going to crash the car. Maybe you need to have the wheel jerked away from you. If only for the sake of whatever or whoever you're about to hit.

Purists resist vehicle automation. I ask why we're not there already? Cell phone use. Tail gating. Road rage. Not using signals. Vehicular manslaughter. DUIs. I don't care if you're an expert driver who can ace the time trials at Laguna Seca. Back in reality, a great many people have proven themselves incapable of piloting a vehicle. You encounter them on the road every day, and some day one of them might kill you because they stubbornly insisted they could pilot a machine better than a computer.

I understand not implicitly trusting a computer to do everything. See: people who receive multiple thousand dollar electric bills, Y2K, that time when 2 Pac's hologram became sentient and the company had to go out of business to cover it up. However. People have already shown how they handle vehicles, and it's poorly. Let's give the computers a spin.

This. We have around 30,000 deaths a year due to auto accidents. If that many Americans died in a year due to a terrorist attack we'd be spending billions to stop it from ever happening again.

Carth:bittermang: sithon: that sounds bad . like it suddenly jerks the wheel out of your hands.

Well. If you were going to crash the car. Maybe you need to have the wheel jerked away from you. If only for the sake of whatever or whoever you're about to hit.

Purists resist vehicle automation. I ask why we're not there already? Cell phone use. Tail gating. Road rage. Not using signals. Vehicular manslaughter. DUIs. I don't care if you're an expert driver who can ace the time trials at Laguna Seca. Back in reality, a great many people have proven themselves incapable of piloting a vehicle. You encounter them on the road every day, and some day one of them might kill you because they stubbornly insisted they could pilot a machine better than a computer.

I understand not implicitly trusting a computer to do everything. See: people who receive multiple thousand dollar electric bills, Y2K, that time when 2 Pac's hologram became sentient and the company had to go out of business to cover it up. However. People have already shown how they handle vehicles, and it's poorly. Let's give the computers a spin.

This. We have around 30,000 deaths a year due to auto accidents. If that many Americans died in a year due to a terrorist attack we'd be spending billions to stop it from ever happening again.

If only a tenth of that number died in a terrorist attack, we'd definitely spend billions and declare a war on automobile accidents.

Carth:dittybopper: It will add cost, and it won't make a difference. See: Risk Homeostasis.

Except some cars already have them and they do work. They make you less likely to get into a car accident and less likely to be injured in those that do happen.

Well, see, the problem is I can have this system, and I can avoid colliding with something in front of me, but the jerkoff behind me who has been riding my ass for the last 20 miles might not have the system installed, so I'm still farked.

I drive a semi that already has one and its benefits far outweigh the annoyances. Auto adjusting cruise and auto braking. Plus lane warning with a loud buzzer if you drift out of your lane without a turn signal on. It's saved me plenty of grief. I am all for every vehicle being required to have them!

bittermang:sithon: that sounds bad . like it suddenly jerks the wheel out of your hands.

Well. If you were going to crash the car. Maybe you need to have the wheel jerked away from you. If only for the sake of whatever or whoever you're about to hit.

Purists resist vehicle automation. I ask why we're not there already? Cell phone use. Tail gating. Road rage. Not using signals. Vehicular manslaughter. DUIs. I don't care if you're an expert driver who can ace the time trials at Laguna Seca. Back in reality, a great many people have proven themselves incapable of piloting a vehicle. You encounter them on the road every day, and some day one of them might kill you because they stubbornly insisted they could pilot a machine better than a computer.

I understand not implicitly trusting a computer to do everything. See: people who receive multiple thousand dollar electric bills, Y2K, that time when 2 Pac's hologram became sentient and the company had to go out of business to cover it up. However. People have already shown how they handle vehicles, and it's poorly. Let's give the computers a spin.

As someone who writes software for a living, and has done so for a couple decades now, that is a really, really, *REALLY* bad idea. It's one thing for an airplane in a relatively open and unobstructed sky to run on autopilot, while being monitored by a seasoned professional.

It's quite another for a distracted housewife to be sitting in a car and yelling at the kids while updating social media on her customized iNail finger-tip device.

If you spend the time and effort to make the software reliable enough to actually use it, meaning testing at all levels and integration validation, etc., testing it by

In an emergency situation, the absolute last thing I want is the vehicle telling me it knows better than I do how to react.

The vehicles with steering that reacts differently depending on conditions is another horrible idea. Turning the steering wheel should give you the same reaction on your wheels every time, not more or less depending on speed or whether the system thinks it's icy.

FirstNationalBastard:Carth: dittybopper: It will add cost, and it won't make a difference. See: Risk Homeostasis.

Except some cars already have them and they do work. They make you less likely to get into a car accident and less likely to be injured in those that do happen.

Well, see, the problem is I can have this system, and I can avoid colliding with something in front of me, but the jerkoff behind me who has been riding my ass for the last 20 miles might not have the system installed, so I'm still farked.

I agree. That is the reason they should be mandated to make sure everyone has them. The fact that people who are currently using them, on roads where not everyone else has one, and already get in fewer accidents makes me think you won't be any more at risk than you currently are during the transition.

Wile_E_Canuck:In an emergency situation, the absolute last thing I want is the vehicle telling me it knows better than I do how to react.

The vehicles with steering that reacts differently depending on conditions is another horrible idea. Turning the steering wheel should give you the same reaction on your wheels every time, not more or less depending on speed or whether the system thinks it's icy.

The purpose of collision avoidance systems is to prevent emergency situations from happening, not tell you what do to in an emergency. If a system could tell you that there is not enough room to change lanes, that you are drifting off the road, or that you are in danger of rear-ending the car in front of you, I think you'd find this useful. Most of the highway accidents (60% according to the NTSB) are due to these three mistakes and all of them are due to a lack of effective attention. We all get distracted sometimes when we drive and systems such as this could be a big help. I think the cost of such systems would be offset by lower auto insurance rates.

bittermang:However. People have already shown how they handle vehicles, and it's poorly. Let's give the computers a spin.

Humans do not tend to consider themselves part of the systems which they operate. When human error occurs, it is counted in a separate category from system error. Hence, a human operated vehicle has very little system error, since only a mechanical failure that directly precipitates an accident is system error.

By removing human error and replacing it with automated driving, the number of system errors will increase.

But that's a bad way of counting system errors. Humans are part of the system, and not counting human errors as system errors is wrong.

TofuTheAlmighty:Explodo: Adding more safety equipment is at odds with adding more fuel economy.

Moving a 2-ton steel box requires just a little more energy than electrifying a few circuit boards.

In aggregate, if it only reduces fuel economy by 0.01%, it will still cost ((208million*12,000milespervehicle)/25mpg) * $3.75 per gallon * 0.01% = $37.44 million dollars a year in extra gas costs, and it will add ((208million*12,000milespervehicle)/25mpg) * 19.4lbs * 0.01% = 193,7 million pounds of extra CO2 into the air per year, contributing to global warming.

Why do you hate the planet, and average working stiffs just trying to get to their job?

Lost Thought 00:Explodo: Adding more safety equipment is at odds with adding more fuel economy.

No, it just means you need to cut back on that 250hp grocery getter.

No: Doesn't matter if the vehicle is a full-sized Dodge EarthFarker, or HappyPlanet Mini-Cart. Adding any additional equipment to either will reduce the fuel economy of both vehicles by a small, but measurable amount. The effect will be more noticeable in the smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicle, however, for a piece of safety equipment that weighs X and consumes Y amount of power.